4 ms·
I've found that a pretty good rule of thumb for recognizing corporate BS is any time a campaign is called "Get The Facts" or something similar. For example, lo
by cal5k 16y ago
I've found that a pretty good rule of thumb for recognizing corporate BS is any time a campaign is called "Get The Facts" or something similar.
For example, look on the side of many boxes of junk cereal and you'll find a "Get The Facts" box touting the benefits of some miniscule quantity of vitamin contained in the cereal. Or when Microsoft launched a "Get The Facts" campaign in 2004 to try to steer users away from Linux.
I also find the phrase to be highly condescending.
- jemfinch 16y ago> I've found that a pretty good rule of thumb for recognizing corporate BS is any time a campaign is called "Get The Facts" or something similar. Good thing that phrase doesn't occur anywhere in the linked post. Or is your aversion to any use by a corporation of the word "facts"?
- cal5k 16y agoHence "or something similar"... I'm attempting to draw a parallel to a common PR tactic that has a rather remarkable track record of being disingenuous.
- prat 16y agoI think this PR tactic became common because this is probably the most obvious way of responding to something that one (Google in this case) thinks is a rumor or inaccuracy. even though the parallels are disingenuous, I would refrain from citing this as a reason for feeling suspicious.
- cal5k 16y agoFair enough. However, my objection is that it paints an overly simplistic picture of the "myth" by reducing it to a one-line straw man which can then easily be dismantled in the "fact" section. So while it's true that it is important to evaluate the content presented, it is also critical to consider the content not included either by commission or omission.
- moultano 16y agoSo you've decided that your reading of this is going to stop at rules of thumb?
- cal5k 16y agoI've addressed this already above.
- mdwrigh2 16y agoI've found that a pretty good rule of thumb for recognizing people who don't care to actually validate facts is any time they use "rules of thumb" or something similar. For example, look at the parent of this post, and you'll find a 'Rule of Thumb' touting a couple anecdotes about when the rule of thumb worked in some instance, without any proof. I also find the phrase to be highly condescending to those of us who care to study an argument for what it contains, and not just a phrase it happens to use.
- cal5k 16y agoNowhere did I say that I hadn't read what was written. However, the format was cause for suspicion. As I mention above, my objection is that it paints an overly simplistic picture of the "myth" by reducing it to a one-line straw man which can then easily be dismantled in the "fact" section. So while it's true that it is important to evaluate the content presented, it is also critical to consider the content not included either by commission or omission.